United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Resources, House of Representatives

November 1997 U.S. INSULAR AREAS

Application of the 

U.S. Constitution

GAO/OGC-98-5

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Office of the General Counsel

B-271897 

November 7, 1997

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

More than 4 million U.S. citizens and nationals live in insular areas1

 under

the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territorial Clause of the

Constitution authorizes the Congress to “make all needful Rules and

Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United

States.2

 Relying on the Territorial Clause, the Congress has enacted

legislation making some provisions of the Constitution explicitly

applicable in the insular areas. In addition to this congressional action,

courts from time to time have ruled on the application of constitutional

provisions to one or more of the insular areas.

You asked us to update our 1991 report to you on the applicability of

provisions of the Constitution to five insular areas: Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the CNMI),

American Samoa, and Guam. You asked specifically about significant

judicial and legislative developments concerning the political or tax status

of these areas, as well as court decisions since our earlier report involving

the applicability of constitutional provisions to these areas. We have

included this information in appendix I.

1

As we did in our 1991 report on this issue, Applicability of Relevant Provisions of the U.S.

Constitution (GAO/HRD-91-18, June 20, 1991), we use the phrase “insular areas” to include all

territories over which the United States exercises sovereignty. Each of these areas has a unique

historical and legal relationship with the United States.

2

U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.

Page 1 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Figure 1: Pacific Ocean Insular Areas

Stewart Is.

Solomon

Islands

Honiara

Guadalcanal

Northern

Mariana

Islands

(U.S.A.)

Guam

(U.S.A.)

Wake

(U.S.A.)

Equator

Papua

New Guinea

Australia

Indonesia

Page 2 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Howland

Baker 

(U.S.A.)

(U.S.A.)

Johnston Atoll

(U.S.A.)

American

Samoa

Jarvis

(U.S.A.)

(U.S.A.)

Kingman Reef

Palmyra Atoll

 (U.S.A.)

Hawaii

(U.S.A.)

Midway Islands

Equator

(U.S.A.)

(U.S.A.)

Page 3 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Figure 2: Western Caribbean Insular Areas

Nicaragua

Navassa 

Island

(U.S.A.)

Cuba

Seranilla Bank Bajo Nuevo

(Petrel Island)

Jamaica

Cayman Islands

Honduras

Page 4 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Dominican

Republic

Haiti

Puerto Rico

 (U.S.A.)

Virgin Islands

 (U.S.A.)

Caribbean Sea

Columbia

Venezuela

Page 5 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

In addition, you asked us to report on the status of, and provide

background information pertaining to, nine insular areas on which we

have not previously reported.3

 These nine are small islands or atolls, most

of which are uninhabited. We summarize the constitutional status of, and

provisions applicable to, the nine smaller insular areas.4

 We also provide

answers to a number of specific questions from your staff concerning

these areas. Detailed information about the histories and current status of

each of the smaller insular areas appears in appendix II.

To develop our report, we obtained information from the Coast Guard, the

Departments of the Interior, State, Navy, and Justice, the Congressional

Research Service, the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives,

and a representative of the owners of Palmyra Atoll. We also reviewed

court decisions and federal legislation, both proposed and enacted, from

1991 to the present, and examined other relevant published materials,

including executive orders, the legislative histories of federal laws, books,

and articles in law reviews and other journals. Ruth Van Cleve, formerly

Special Assistant, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior,

reviewed a draft at our request and provided comments.

Results in Brief No significant change has occurred since 1991 in the application of the

Constitution to, and the legal status of, the five insular areas on which we

reported at that time. Some, however, are actively seeking greater political

autonomy. Referendums were held in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

on political status options and, in February 1997, a bill concerning Puerto

Rico’s political status was reintroduced in the 105th Congress. A bill that

would have granted the CNMI a non-voting delegate to the U.S. Congress

was considered but not enacted in the 104th Congress. In January 1997, a

bill to grant commonwealth status to Guam was reintroduced in the 105th

Congress.

A tax credit previously available for corporations doing business in insular

areas is being phased out. The Puerto Rico and Possessions Tax Credit

(section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code), as originally enacted, allowed

corporations to receive a tax credit for business income earned in the

territories in an amount equal to their full U.S. income tax liability. A 1993

3

Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra

Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island.

4

For convenience in distinguishing between the two groups of insular areas, we sometimes refer in this

report to the nine insular areas we have not previously reported on as the “smaller insular areas,” and

to the five areas that were the subject of our earlier report as the “larger insular areas.”

Page 6 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

amendment limited the amount of the credit. In 1996, the law was

amended further to provide that, after a 10-year transition period, the

credit will no longer be available.

Several court decisions during the last 6 years have addressed the

applicability of constitutional provisions to individual insular areas. Two

decisions discuss, in the context of the Territorial Clause of the

Constitution, the relationship of an insular area with the United States. In

a case involving the CNMI, the court looked for guidance to the Covenant,5

the agreement which establishes the legal relationship between the CNMI

and the United States and which has been approved by federal statute.

Although acknowledging that the CNMI remains subject to the Territorial

Clause, the court emphasized that the provisions of the Covenant, as

approved by the Congress, “define the boundaries” of the relationship

between the United States and the CNMI. In the second case, the court

concluded that, while the Congress has granted the right of local

self-government to Puerto Rico, there has been no fundamental alteration

in Puerto Rico’s constitutional relationship to the United States: Puerto

Rico remains subject to the Territorial Clause.

Of the nine smaller insular areas not addressed in our earlier report, eight

are unincorporated and unorganized territories of the United States to

which only “fundamental” personal rights under the Constitution apply.6

 In

1900, in a law that remains in force, the Congress extended the

Constitution in its entirety to the ninth area, Palmyra Atoll. Palmyra was

once part of the Territory of Hawaii, but was expressly excluded when

Hawaii became a state. While no definitive determination has been made

concerning the current status of Palmyra, it seems likely that a court

would conclude that the Constitution continues to apply in its entirety.

Background The larger insular areas have come under the sovereignty of the United

States in various ways. Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded to the United

States by treaty at the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The Virgin

Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917. Following the renunciation

by Great Britain and Germany of their claims to what is now American

5

Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America, approved by Pub. L. No. 94-241, 90 Stat. 263 (1976), 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.

6

In general, fundamental rights, applicable to all individuals subject to the sovereignty of the United

States, are “inherent, although unexpressed principles which are the basis of all free government.”

Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 147 (1904); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 282-83 (1901). The

Supreme Court has not defined precisely which parts of the Constitution establish fundamental rights.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 13 (1957). See appendix I for further discussion.

Page 7 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Samoa and the cession by the Samoan chiefs to the United States of these

islands, the Congress, in 1929, ratified the instruments ceding the islands

to the United States.7

 The United States was responsible for administering

the Northern Mariana Islands after World War II under a United Nations

trusteeship agreement. Ultimately, a covenant between the United States

and the Northern Marianas established the islands as a commonwealth

under the sovereignty of the United States.8

At present, general federal administrative responsibility for the CNMI,

Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa is vested in the

Department of the Interior. Under terms of its covenant, the CNMI consults

regularly with the United States on all matters affecting the relationship

between them. All departments, agencies, and officials of the executive

branch treat Puerto Rico administratively “as if it were a state;” any

matters concerning the fundamentals of the U.S.-Puerto Rican relationship

are referred to the Office of the President.9

Since the United States established sovereignty over the five larger insular

areas, each has pursued greater self-government. Initially, military

governors had responsibility for Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,

and American Samoa; governors were later replaced by civilian

administrators, most of whom were appointed by the President. The CNMI,

as a United Nations Trust Territory, was administered by the United States

acting through the Navy. Eventually, each of the five larger areas was

authorized to elect its own governor. In addition, the Congress authorized

all of the larger areas to adopt their own constitutions. Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the CNMI have internal self-government under

locally-adopted constitutions. Guam and the Virgin Islands have not

adopted local constitutions and remain under organic acts approved by

the Congress.

People born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the CNMI, or the Virgin Islands are

American citizens; those born in American Samoa are American

7

Convention in Respect to the Samoan Group of Islands, Dec. 2, 1899, 31 Stat. 1878 (1900); Act of

February 20, 1929, ch. 281, 45 Stat. 1253 (1929), 48 U.S.C. § 1661.

8

See GAO/HRD-91-18, June 20, 1991, for more detail concerning each of these areas.

9

Memorandum of the President, Nov. 30, 1992, 57 Fed. Reg. 57,093 (1992).

Page 8 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

nationals.10 The residents of all five of the larger insular areas enjoy many

of the rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the 50 states. But some rights

which, under the Constitution, are reserved for citizens residing in the

states have not been extended to residents of the insular areas. For

example, residents of the insular areas cannot vote in national elections,

nor do they have voting representation in the final approval of legislation

by the full Congress.

Most of the nine smaller insular areas you asked about were discovered by

adventurers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and were claimed by

representatives of the United States in the latter part of the 19th century

under the 1856 Guano Islands Act.11 The act provides legal and military

protection for American entrepreneurs mining guano, or bird droppings,

for use in the United States; most of these nine insular areas were used by

private companies as sources of guano, which they sold as fertilizer.

None of the smaller insular areas has a native population or local

government. Midway Atoll and Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands are

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the

Interior as wildlife refuges. Johnston Atoll is administered jointly by the

Defense Nuclear Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Kingman Reef

is administered by the Navy.12 Wake Island is being used by the Army

Space and Missile Defense Command. Since January 1997, the Department

of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs has been responsible for the civil

administration of Navassa (the Coast Guard having ceased its use and

administration of Navassa Island in 1996.) Palmyra Atoll is privately

owned, but is also administered by the Office of Insular Affairs of the

Department of the Interior.

10An American national is either a citizen or someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the United

States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21), (22). Citizenship is derived either from the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”) or from a specific statute that confers citizenship on the

inhabitants of an area that, although not a state, is under the sovereignty of the United States. Such

legislation has been enacted for Puerto Rico (8 U.S.C. § 1402); the Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406);

Guam (8 U.S.C. § 1407); and the CNMI (sec. 303 of the Covenant, as approved by the Congress).

(Under section 302 of the Covenant, authority exists for certain CNMI residents to have elected to

become nationals but not citizens of the United States.) 

No such legislation conferring citizenship has been enacted for American Samoa. The Samoans,

therefore, are not citizens of the United States but, having been born in an area under sovereignty of

the United States, are non-citizen nationals owing permanent allegiance to the United States. As such,

they are not entitled to benefits for which only citizens qualify. On the other hand, they are not aliens

and consequently cannot be excluded or deported.

1148 U.S.C. §§ 1411-19.

12Kingman Reef has been claimed by the Fullard-Leo family. See appendix II for further discussion.

Page 9 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

Observations on the

Applicability of the U.S.

Constitution to Smaller

Insular Areas

Of the nine U.S. insular areas not addressed in our earlier report, eight are

unincorporated and unorganized territories of the United States13 to which

constitutional rights have not been extended by law; therefore, in general,

only “fundamental” personal rights under the Constitution apply.14 Most of

these islands were claimed under the Guano Islands Act.15

The question of what constitutional provisions apply to Palmyra Atoll is

not settled, but it seems likely that the courts would conclude that the

Constitution continues to apply in its entirety.16 The Constitution was

extended in 1900 by statute to the Territory of Hawaii.17 At the time,

Palmyra was part of that territory. However, Palmyra was specifically

excluded from the area subsequently designated by law as the State of

Hawaii. The provision of law extending the entire Constitution to Palmyra

when it was part of the territory of Hawaii has never been amended or

repealed and it is not clear that doing so could change the current status of

Palmyra. The Supreme Court has suggested, although without squarely

deciding the question, that once the Constitution has been extended to an

area, its coverage is irrevocable.18

The status of Navassa recently has come under the scrutiny of a number of

federal agencies, all of which agree that it has been and remains an

unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States. In August

1996, the Coast Guard, which had been administering Navassa, dismantled

its light and removed its signs indicating the area was restricted.

Subsequently, an American salvager filed a claim to the island with the

Department of State under the Guano Islands Act. The claim was

13The eight insular areas are Navassa Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis

Island, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, and Wake Island. Legislation introduced in the 104th Congress

would have included Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Howland Island, the

Midway Islands, and Palmyra Atoll as part of the state of Hawaii. H.R. 602, 104th Cong. (1995). Another

bill would have included Baker, Jarvis, and Howland Islands as part of American Samoa. H.R. 3721,

104th Cong. (1996). No formal action was taken on either bill, following their referral to committee.

14See appendix I for a discussion of fundamental rights.

15The act provides that an island on which guano is discovered by a U.S. citizen and which is not

claimed by another government may be considered, at the discretion of the President, as “appertaining

to the United States.” 48 U.S.C. § 1411.

16See appendix II for more detail.

17Act of April 30, 1900, ch. 339, § 5, 31 Stat. 141-42 (1900).

18Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 261 (1901), commenting on an earlier Supreme Court decision,

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820); Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516,

529-530, 536 (1905)(concurring opinions of Justices Harlan and Brown).

Page 10 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
B-271897 

rejected.19 In January 1997, the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the

Office of Insular Affairs responsibilities for the civil administration of

Navassa.20

Agency Comments The Departments of Interior, Justice, and State, as well as the United

States Coast Guard, and the offices of the representatives from Puerto

Rico, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

provided comments on our draft report. Each of these agencies and offices

generally agreed with the information and issues discussed in our draft

report and offered technical comments, which we incorporated in the

report as appropriate. (Written comments from the Coast Guard, the

Department of the Interior, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico,

and the Resident Representative of the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands are reproduced in appendices III-VI.) The office of the

representative from American Samoa reviewed the draft and had no

comment. The office of the representative from the Virgin Islands did not

provide comments.

We are providing copies of this report to the Secretaries of State,

Transportation, and the Interior, the Attorney General, and the offices of

the representatives from the five larger insular areas.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-8203. Other major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Barry R. Bedrick

Associate General Counsel

19Under the Guano Islands Act, the discoverer of a guano island has to give notice of discovery,

occupation, and possession, and provide “satisfactory evidence” that the island was not “in the

possession or occupation of any other government or the citizens of any other government” before the

claim can be perfected. 48 U.S.C. § 1412. See appendix II for more detail.

20Secretary’s Order No. 3205, Department of the Interior, January 16, 1997.

Page 11 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas -

An Update

14

Appendix II 

Relationship With the

United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

39

Appendix III 

Comments From the

United States Coast

Guard

64

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of the

Interior

65

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Resident

Commissioner of

Puerto Rico

67

Page 12 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Contents

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Resident

Representative of the

Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana

Islands

69

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

71

Figures Figure 1: Pacific Ocean Insular Areas 2

Figure 2: Western Caribbean Insular Areas 4

Figure I.1: Puerto Rico 14

Figure I.2: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 16

Figure I.3: Island of Guam 18

Figure I.4: U.S. Virgin Islands 20

Figure I.5: American Samoa 22

Figure II.1: Palmyra Atoll 41

Figure II.2: Hawaii 43

Figure II.3: Navassa Island 46

Figure II.4: Johnston Atoll 50

Figure II.5: Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands 53

Figure II.6: Kingman Reef 57

Figure II.7: Midway Atoll 59

Figure II.8: Wake Atoll 62

Abbreviations

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

FSC foreign sales corporation

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

Page 13 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Efforts to Enhance

Self-Government and

Economic

Development

Since our 1991 report, efforts of the five larger insular areas—Puerto Rico,

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin

Islands, and American Samoa—to pursue greater self-government and

economic development have continued. See maps of these areas in figures

I.1 through I.5.

Figure I.1: Puerto Rico

San Juan

Isla de Vieques

Isla de

Culebra

Isla

Culebrita

Isla De Mona

Isla Desecheo

Puerto Rico

Caribbean Sea

Puerto Rico: A referendum was held, in November 1993, in which the

commonwealth option—maintaining the current political status of Puerto

Rico—did not receive a majority of votes cast but prevailed by a slim

margin over the statehood option.1

 In 1995, hearings were held on the

results of the 1993 referendum, on the basis of which Representative Don

Young, Chairman of the Committee on Resources, introduced H.R. 3024,

104th Congress, the “United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.” The

bill was reported to the House in July 1996 by the Committee on

Resources, but was not voted on in the 104th Congress. In February 1997,

Representative Young introduced H.R. 856, 105th Congress, a bill that is

substantially similar to H.R. 3024. That bill was reported to the House by

1

The commonwealth option received 48 percent of the votes, the statehood option 46 percent, and the

independence option 4 percent. Rafael Matos, Commonwealth a Winner with 48.4% of Vote, San Juan

Star, November 15, 1993, at 3. However, results of the referendum were difficult to interpret due to the

manner in which the three options were presented to the voters. H.R. Rep. No. 104-713, Pt. 1, at 16

(1996).

Page 14 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

the Committee on Resources on June 12, 1997.2 As of October 10, 1997, no

further action has been taken.

The pending bill would establish a three-stage process for enhancing

self-government in Puerto Rico, should that be the choice of the Puerto

Rican people. In the first stage, a referendum would be held in Puerto Rico

no later than December 31, 1998. The ballot must provide three

options—commonwealth, separate sovereignty, or statehood—as each is

defined in the bill. In the second (transition) stage, if the referendum

choice is for either statehood or separate sovereignty, the bill, as reported,

would require the President to develop and submit to the Congress

legislation for a transition plan of not more than 10 years duration. If

enacted by the Congress, the transition plan would be submitted to the

Puerto Rican electorate for approval in another referendum. Assuming the

plan was approved, the final stage would begin with the President’s

submission to the Congress of proposed legislation to implement the form

of self-government consistent with Puerto Rico’s choice, including a

proposed date for implementation. If this were enacted by the Congress, it

would be presented to Puerto Rican voters for approval by referendum,

and the results certified to the President.

With regard to economic development, the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA),3

 which came into effect in 1994, specifically applies to

Puerto Rico. NAFTA defines the term “territory” with respect to the United

States to encompass U.S. customs territory, which includes the 50 states,

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as foreign trade zones

located in the United States and Puerto Rico. NAFTA also covers areas

beyond U.S. territorial seas within which the United States may exercise

rights over the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources.

2

H.R. Rep. No. 105-131, Pt. 1, at 45. The bill was placed on the Union Calendar for consideration by the

Committee of the Whole (see infra note 32).

3

32 Int’l Legal Materials 296-456 (1993).

Page 15 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Figure I.2: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Saipan

Tinian

Aguijan

Rota

Farallon de Pajaros

Maug Islands

Asuncion Island

Agrihan

Pagan

Alamagan

Guguan

Sarigan

Anatahan

Farallon de Medinilla

Saipan

Tinian

Aguijan

Rota

North Pacific

Ocean

Philippine

Sea

Page 16 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Northern Mariana Islands: The CNMI continues to be represented in the

District of Columbia by a Resident Representative who serves as a liaison

with the federal government. However, the CNMI does not have a

representative in the Congress. In September 1996, a bill to grant the CNMI

a nonvoting delegate to the U.S. Congress was favorably reported by the

Committee on Resources, but no further action was taken during the 104th

Congress.4

In another development, in August 1997, the CNMI government filed suit

against the United States in federal district court. The CNMI is suing to

determine who holds title to the submerged lands within a 12 mile radius

surrounding all the islands in the Commonwealth.5

Guam: Proposed legislation to grant commonwealth status to Guam, first

introduced in the 100th Congress by former delegate Ben Blaz in 1988,6

was introduced in each subsequent Congress, but no formal action,

beyond referral to committee, was taken on any of the bills.7

 Delegate

Underwood again has introduced in the 105th Congress the bill to grant

Guam commonwealth status.8

 Upon approval by the Congress, the act

would be submitted to the registered voters of Guam for ratification. The

United States would agree that no provision of the act would be modified,

nor any subsequently passed federal law, rule, or regulation made

applicable to Guam, except with the mutual consent of Guam and the

United States.

4

H.R. 4067, 104th Cong. (1996), introduced by Rep. Gallegly; H.R. Rep. No. 104-856 (1996).

5

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, No. CV 97-0036, (D.N.M.I. Aug. 21,

1997).

6

H.R. 4100, 100th Cong. (1988).

7

H.R. 98, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 98, 102d Cong. (1991); H.R. 1521, 103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 1056, 104th

Cong. (1995); to be known if enacted as the Guam Commonwealth Act.

8

H.R. 100, 105th Cong. (1997).

Page 17 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Figure I.3: Island of Guam

Reef

Island

Legend

Agana

North Pacific Ocean

Page 18 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

The proposed legislation sets forth requirements for a constitution to be

drafted and adopted by Guam, including a provision permitting the

Chamorro people — the indigenous people of Guam — to exercise the

right of self-determination. The bill would permit the President to delegate

to the Governor of Guam the total or partial performance of functions

currently handled by federal agencies. The bill would require the United

States to consult with Guam on specific foreign relations and defense

matters affecting Guam. In addition, the United States would assist Guam

in becoming a member of or participate in regional and international

organizations, and would permit Guam to enter into reciprocal trade and

tax agreements with other countries. Under the bill, Guam would remain

outside the customs territory of the United States and would continue to

have duty-free access to U.S. markets. Also, the bill would grant Guam,

subject to coordination with federal agencies, control over immigration

and, generally, would authorize it to enact and enforce all laws regulating

or affecting local employment. In addition, the bill would create a

commission to study and propose modification to existing federal statutes

and regulations applicable to Guam.

Virgin Islands: A referendum on the political status of the Virgin Islands

was held in October 1993.9

 Voters were asked to choose among the

following options: complete integration with the United States, continued

or enhanced territorial status, or removal of U.S. sovereignty. Of those

who voted, 80 percent selected continued or enhanced territorial status.

However, only 27.5 percent of the electorate voted.

Legislation pending in the 105th Congress would establish a commission

to report and make recommendations to the President and the Congress

on the policies and actions necessary to provide a self-sustaining economy

for the Virgin Islands through 2020.10

9

The referendum was conducted under the authority of the Virgin Islands Organic Act. 48 U.S.C. §

1593(b).

10S. 210, 105th Cong. (1997), which passed the Senate on June 12, 1997. Nearly identical language

passed the House in 1996. H.R. 1332, 104th Cong. (1996).

Page 19 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Figure I.4: U.S. Virgin Islands

Saint Croix

Christiansted

Buck Island

Frederiksted

St Thomas

Charlotte Amalie

St John

(U.K.)

Tortola

Savana Island

Caribbean Sea

Page 20 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

American Samoa: American Samoa’s main focus in relation to the United

States currently is economic development. In 1992, we reported on

deficiencies in American Samoa’s fiscal management and budget

capabilities.11 In response, the American Samoan government has

developed a plan which it is implementing in cooperation with federal

agencies and others to improve its fiscal management and budget

capabilities and to attract investment. In addition, legislation pending in

the 105th Congress would establish a commission to report and make

recommendations to the President and the Congress on the policies and

actions necessary to sustain American Samoa’s economy through 2020. As

part of its report, the commission would include an overview of American

Samoa’s history and its relationship to the United States, with emphasis on

actions affecting future economic development.12

In another development, an assessment team from the Department of

Justice visited American Samoa in 1994. In a December 1994 report, the

team concluded that the absence of a federal court in American Samoa

contributed to difficulties in curbing white collar crime.13 In October 1996

and again in 1997, the Department of Justice submitted to the Congress a

draft legislative proposal to establish a federal district court of limited

jurisdiction in American Samoa.

11American Samoa: Inadequate Management and Oversight Contribute to Financial Problems

(GAO/NSIAD-92-64, April 17, 1992).

12S. 210, 105th Cong. (1997) passed the House on June 12, 1997. Bills were also introduced in previous

Congresses to create a study commission to review American Samoa’s political relationship with the

United States. H.R. 3351, 102d Cong. (1991); H.R. 187, 103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 3721 and H.R. 1332 (as it

passed the House), 104th Cong. (1996).

13The report, noting that American Samoa’s court system is not part of the federal judicial structure,

cited difficulties encountered in issuing and enforcing federal subpoenas. The Dep’t of Justice Report

on American Samoa White-Collar Crime Assessment Which Highlights Some Serious Problems and

Suggests Possible Resolutions: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Native American and Insular Affairs

of the House Comm. on Resources, 104th Cong. (1995).

Page 21 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Figure I.5: American Samoa

Reef/Shoal

Island

Legend

Taulaga

Pago

Pago

Harbor Aunuu

Island

Etena

Boat Passage

Sand Island

Sand Island

Rose Island

Rose Island Lagoon

Swains Island

Swains Island

Tau Island

Tau Island

Pago Pago

Tutuila Island

Tutuila Island

Ofu Island

Ofu Island

Olosega Island

Olosega Island

South Pacific Ocean

Page 22 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Applicability of

Constitutional

Provisions to U.S.

Insular Areas

“Fundamental”

Constitutional Rights

Apply to All Territories

The Constitution does not apply in its entirety to territories solely by

virtue of the fact that those territories have come under the possession

and control of the United States.14 Whether rights under the Constitution

apply to a territory and, if so, to what extent depends essentially on either

of two factors, according to a series of Supreme Court decisions called the

Insular Cases.15 The first is whether the right in question is considered to

be “fundamental” or not; the second is whether the Congress has taken

legislative action to extend the Constitution to the territory.

Most of the Insular Cases, which comprise the first extensive

consideration of the application of constitutional and statutory rights

within United States territories, date from 1901 to 1904, following a period

of territorial expansion by the United States. In these cases, the Supreme

Court developed the idea that, without any action by the Congress,

constitutional rights that are considered to be “fundamental” are available

in all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States,16 but that other

rights apply only when extended to such areas by law. The Court pointed

out that even though some of these fundamental rights may not be

14“It is not open to us in light of the Insular Cases to endorse the view that every constitutional

provision applies wherever the United States Government exercises its power.” United States v.

Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 268-69 (1990).

15The Supreme Court cases that are often identified as the first Insular Cases are: De Lima v. Bidwell,

182 U.S. 1 (1901) (Puerto Rico not a foreign country within the meaning of the generally applicable

tariff law); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) (tariff imposed by the Congress on goods imported

from Puerto Rico into the United States did not violate the Uniformity Clause); and Dooley v. United

States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901) and Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901) (presidentially-imposed

war tariff on goods exported from the United States to Puerto Rico ended upon ratification of the

peace treaty under which Puerto Rico became subject to U.S. sovereignty).

Some later decisions that are also described as Insular Cases are: Hawaii v. Manikichi, 190 U.S. 197

(1903) (Fifth Amendment requirement for indictment by grand jury and Sixth Amendment right to jury

trial inapplicable in Hawaii); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904) (Sixth Amendment right to jury

trial inapplicable in the Philippines); Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (1914) (Fifth Amendment

grand jury provision not included in the guarantees of due process and not applicable in the

Philippines); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (Sixth Amendment right to jury trial inapplicable

in Puerto Rico).

16“[E]ven in cases where there is no direct command of the Constitution which applies, there may

nevertheless be restrictions of so fundamental a nature that they cannot be transgressed, although not

expressed in so many words in the Constitution.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. at 290-291.

Page 23 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

expressly stated in the Constitution, it would be wholly inconsistent with

the principles that underlie our government not to preserve them in the

territories. Thus, in one of the Insular Cases, Downes v. Bidwell, the Court

said that the Congress, in creating governments for the territories, could

not do so in such a way as to abridge fundamental rights.17

The question whether particular rights are fundamental has been

answered only as specific cases come before the Supreme Court. The

Court has identified the Fifth Amendment privilege against

self-incrimination as a fundamental right.18 On the other hand, the Court

has said that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and the Fifth

Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury “are not fundamental in

their nature, but concern merely a method of procedure . . . .”19

Under the Insular Cases and subsequent decisions, rights other than

fundamental rights, even though they may be stated in the Constitution, do

not apply to the territories or possessions unless the Congress makes them

applicable by legislation.20 The Congress can by law extend the coverage

of the Constitution in part or in its entirety to a territory or possession, and

has done so with respect to some territories. In the absence of such

congressional action, however, only fundamental rights apply. The Insular

Cases use the term “incorporated” to distinguish territories where all

constitutional rights apply, because a statute has made them applicable,

from “unincorporated” territories, where fundamental rights apply as a

matter of law, but other constitutional rights are not available.

17“Whilst, therefore, there is no express or implied limitation on Congress in exercising its power to

create local governments for any and all of the territories . . . there may . . . be inherent, although

unexpressed, principles which are the basis of all free government which cannot be with impunity

transcended.” Id.

18Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).

19Dorr, 195 U.S. at 144-45.

20Although the Insular Cases remain authoritative, an opinion in a later case questions the concept of

fundamental rights derived from those cases. In an opinion for himself and three of the five other

justices who concurred in the result in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (holding that the law that made

civilian citizens accompanying the armed forces overseas subject to court-martial was unconstitutional

to the extent it denied the defendants Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections), Justice Black said: “[I]t

is our judgment that neither the [Insular Cases] nor their reasoning should be given any further

expansion. The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary

government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is

a very dangerous concept . . . .” Id. at 13-14.

However, the Court has subsequently relied on the Insular Cases to support its holding that the Fourth

Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure does not protect a nonresident alien whose

seized property is located in another country. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 268-69 (1990).

Page 24 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Territorial Clause Under what is commonly known as the Territorial Clause of the

Constitution, the Congress has the “power to make all needful Rules and

Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United

States.21 Pursuant to this power, and in response to local desire for greater

political autonomy, the Congress in 1950 approved a process for local

self-government for Puerto Rico, under which its residents could establish,

subject to congressional approval, their own constitution.22 Separately,

negotiations between the Northern Marianas and the United States

culminated in a law approving a mutually binding agreement, the Covenant

to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which

permitted local constitutional self-government and went into effect on

November 3, 1986.23

A 1993 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit discussed the

relationship between the United States and the CNMI in the context of the

applicability of the CNMI Covenant and the Territorial Clause. A federal

district court had enforced a subpoena of the Inspector General of the

Department of the Interior, pursuant to statutory audit authority, for

records related to the CNMI’s administration of its income tax system. On

appeal, the court of appeals agreed that the subpoena was valid, but

rejected the Inspector General’s reliance on the Territorial Clause as

support for the federal audit. The court emphasized that, although the

Territorial Clause applies to the CNMI,

24 it is the provisions of the Covenant,

as approved by the Congress, that “define the boundaries” of the

relationship between the United States and the CNMI: “The applicability of

the Territorial Clause to the CNMI . . . is not dispositive of this dispute. Even

if the Territorial Clause provides the constitutional basis for the Congress’

legislative authority in the Commonwealth, it is solely by the Covenant

that we measure the limits of Congress’ legislative power.”25

21U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.

22The 1950 law, “adopted in the nature of a compact,” authorized Puerto Rico to draft its own

constitution, subject to ratification by Puerto Rican voters and subject to the approval of the U.S.

Congress. Pub. L. No. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319 (1950). The constitution, ratified by Puerto Rican voters in a

March 1952 referendum, was approved by the Congress in July 1952 with minor changes. Pub. L. No.

82-447, 66 Stat. 327 (1952).

23Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America, approved by Pub. L. No. 94-241, 90 Stat. 263 (1976), 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.

24See also Micronesian Telecomms. Corp. v. NLRB, 820 F.2d 1097, 1100, n.2 (9th Cir. 1987); Wabol v.

Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450, 1459 and n. 17 (9th Cir. 1990); cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1027 (1992).

25United States v. De Leon Guerrero, 4 F.3d 749, 754 (9th Cir. 1993).

Page 25 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Looking to the provisions of the Covenant, the court rejected the CNMI’s

argument that local affairs are immune from federal legislation. Section

105 of the Covenant expressly recognizes the authority of the United

States to enact legislation applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands, but

it goes on to say that the United States agrees not to override unilaterally

certain specific provisions of the Covenant that are identified as

“fundamental,” including the right of local self-government in section 103.

The court read the Covenant as meaning that the Congress may legislate

with respect to the internal affairs of the CNMI if the United States has an

identifiable federal interest that will be served by the legislation and that

outweighs the degree of intrusion into the internal affairs of the CNMI.

In deciding the validity of the subpoena at issue in this case, the court

concluded first that there was a federal interest in monitoring the CNMI’s

collection of taxes, in part because the efficacy of the CNMI’s revenue

collection would have an effect on the amount of federal assistance

needed for the CNMI. The court went on to say that, because “a substantial

portion of the CNMI budget is comprised of direct and indirect federal

financial assistance,” the audit requirement did not impermissibly intrude

on the internal affairs of the CNMI.

26

In the most recent case to discuss the Territorial Clause with regard to

Puerto Rico,27 the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the

Congress’ decision to permit self-governance in Puerto Rico did not

remove Puerto Rico from application of the Territorial Clause. The court

concluded that there has been no fundamental alteration in Puerto Rico’s

relationship to the United States: “Puerto Rico is still constitutionally a

territory, and not a separate sovereign.”28

Congressional

Representation

The Constitution establishes the House of Representatives and the Senate,

comprising representatives elected by the citizens in each state.29 Although

the insular areas cannot elect representatives or senators, the Congress

26Id. at 755.

27United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1993). The case concerned the application of the

Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution to Puerto Rico.

28Id. at 1151-52. Finding that Puerto Rico still derives its powers from the U.S. Congress, the court said:

“Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations

Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. Despite passage of the Federal

Relations Act and the Puerto Rican Constitution, Puerto Rican courts continue to derive their authority

to punish from the United States Congress . . . .” Id. at 1153.

29U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2-3.

Page 26 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

has created a form of representation for them. Statutes permit four of the

larger insular areas to elect officials who have a role in the House of

Representatives, and the fifth to elect a representative to the United

States. Puerto Rico elects a resident commissioner to the United States

Congress for a 4-year term. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa

elect delegates to the Congress for 2-year terms. The Covenant and the

CNMI constitution provide for the CNMI to have an elected resident

representative to the United States who, under the CNMI constitution,

currently serves for a 4-year term. Were the Congress to authorize the CNMI

representative to serve in the Congress, the CNMI constitution provides that

the representative’s term will conform to the term of office required by the

authorizing statute.

From 1900 through 1970, under rules of the House of Representatives,

territorial delegates were permitted to participate in floor debate and to be

members of committees but were not allowed to vote either in committee

or on the floor. In 1971, House Rule XII was changed to allow the resident

commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote in standing committees

and otherwise to possess in those committees the same powers and

privileges as members of the Congress.30

In 1975, Rule X of the House Rules was amended to authorize the speaker

to appoint the resident commissioner and delegates to serve on

conference committees considering legislation reported from a committee

on which they served. In 1993, the rule was further amended to permit the

speaker to appoint the resident commissioner and delegates to serve on

any conference committee.31 This rule remains in effect.

In 1993, the House again amended House Rules to give the resident

commissioner and delegates, representing the insular areas (and the

District of Columbia), the additional authority to vote in the Committee of

the Whole as long as such votes were not decisive on a question.32

30H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. (1971). The rule gave the same status to the delegate from the District of

Columbia. These privileges were extended to the delegates from Guam, the Virgin Islands, and

American Samoa, when they were authorized representation in the Congress. Pub. L. No. 92-271, § 5,

86 Stat. 118, 119 (1972); Pub. L. No. 95-556, § 5, 92 Stat. 2078 (1978).

31H. Res. 5, 103d Cong. § 7(b) (1993).

32H.R. Res. 5, 103d Cong. § 9 (1993). “Committee of the Whole” is a procedure used by the House of

Representatives during floor debate. When this procedure is invoked, the House uses committee

markup procedures, rather than the more formal procedures applicable to floor proceedings. Once the

Committee of the Whole reports a bill to the House of Representatives, the House votes on the bill in

the usual fashion.

Page 27 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

However, this authority lasted only until the next Congress.33 In

January 1995, the House eliminated the authority for the resident

commissioner and delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole. They

continue to be authorized to serve in the same manner as other members

on standing committees. Starting in January 1995, the resident

commissioner and delegates are counted for purposes of calculating the

ratio of Republican to Democrat members within a committee.

None of the smaller insular areas has a native population or local

government. None is represented in any way in the Congress.

Commerce Clause Interstate commerce and foreign trade are regulated by the Congress

through the Commerce Clause. 34 The Clause is an affirmative grant of

power to the Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and

among the several States . . . ,” but also has a “dormant” or “negative”

aspect. 35 This dormant side “limits the power of the States to erect

barriers against interstate trade.”36 Two cases have recently considered

whether the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause applies to the Virgin

Islands and Puerto Rico, respectively.37

33Several members of the Congress challenged the constitutionality of permitting the resident

commissioner and delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole. They argued that the provision

diluted their votes and violated Article I of the Constitution, providing that the House “shall be

composed of Members chosen every Second Year by the People of the Several States.” The Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit found that the additional authority provided by the rule change was

largely symbolic because the House had, at the same time, also amended Rule XXIII, c. 2(d), to require

the House to revote without including the insular representatives on any vote in the Committee of the

Whole in which the votes of the resident commissioner or the delegates were decisive. The court held

that the rule was constitutional, and that the power it conferred was not significantly greater than that

already enjoyed by the resident commissioner and delegates in serving and voting on the standing

committees. Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

34U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

35See Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, 318 (1851).

36Lewis v. BT Inv. Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27, 35 (1980).

37As we said in our earlier report, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in 1985 that the

Commerce Clause does not apply to Guam because Guam is not a state. Sakamoto v. Duty Free

Shoppers, Ltd., 764 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1985). But see Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd. v. Tax Commissioner,

464 F. Supp. 730 (D. Guam 1979), which found that the Commerce Clause did apply to Guam,

apparently through the Territorial Clause. There have been no cases on the applicability of the

Commerce Clause to American Samoa or the CNMI.

Page 28 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

In 1993, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, following the reasoning

of its earlier decision,38 held that the Commerce Clause, through the

Territorial Clause, limits the authority of the Virgin Islands to regulate

commerce. Under federal law, domestic corporations can set up “foreign

sales corporations” (FSCs) in U.S. possessions. The income of an FSC that

meets the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code is exempt from

federal tax. FSCs incorporated in the Virgin Islands challenged local

statutes imposing taxes and fees on their operations.

The FSCs argued that the Virgin Islands tax constituted a barrier to

interstate trade and therefore offended against the dormant aspect of the

Commerce Clause. The court agreed, relying on its earlier decision that

“Congress has comprehensive powers to regulate territories under the

Territorial Clause . . . and that Congress’ Commerce Clause powers ’are

implicit’ in that clause.”39 The court reasoned that, if the Virgin Islands

were not subject to the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause and could

therefore pass laws that would interfere with interstate trade, then “an

unincorporated territory would have more power over commerce than the

states possess.”40 Because it found that Commerce Clause principles are

implicit in the Territorial Clause, the court found it unnecessary to decide

whether the Commerce Clause applies directly to the Virgin Islands.

In a 1992 case, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit went a step

further with respect to Puerto Rico, concluding that, apart from the

Territorial Clause, “Puerto Rico is subject to the dormant Commerce

Clause doctrine in the same fashion as the states.”41 The plaintiff, Trailer

Marine, transported goods to Puerto Rico on trailers that could be rolled

off a ship and then attached to local tractors for delivery. It contended that

the imposition by Puerto Rico of a motor vehicle fee on its trailers unduly

burdened or discriminated against interstate commerce.42 A 1980 district

38JDS Realty Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 824 F.2d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 1987), vacated and

remanded to consider mootness, 484 U.S. 999 (1988), vacated, 852 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1988) (noted in

GAO/HRD-91-18, June 20, 1991, page 21). In JDS Realty, the Court of Appeals had held that Commerce

Clause powers are implicit in the Territorial Clause, but that decision was vacated for other reasons.

39JDS Realty, 824 F.2d at 260.

40Polychrome, 5 F.3d at 1534-35, quoting JDS Realty, 824 F.2d at 259.

41Trailer Marine Transp. Corp. v. Rivera-Vazquez, 977 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1992); United Egg Producers v.

Dep’t of Agric., 77 F.3d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1996); Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto, 114 F.3d 330, 331 (1st Cir.

1997).

42To protect individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents, Puerto Rico had instituted a no-fault

compensation plan funded by vehicle fees. Puerto Rican legislation aimed directly at transitory trailers

required either an annual fee or a fee for each visit of such a vehicle if remaining in Puerto Rico less

than 30 days.

Page 29 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

court decision had applied the Commerce Clause to Puerto Rico through

the Territorial Clause “as an implied corollary of congressional powers

thereunder.”43 After examining Puerto Rico’s constitutional history, “a

skein of statutes and precedents as tangled as any in our history,”44 the

court of appeals concluded that, “[w]hatever the ultimate source of its

authority or its exact constitutional status, Puerto Rico today certainly has

sufficient actual autonomy to justify treating it as a public entity distinct

from Congress and subject to the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine.”45

The court held that the fee imposed by Puerto Rico unduly burdened

interstate commerce.

Elections American citizens who reside in the insular areas may not vote for

President. The Constitution provides for the election of the President by

electors appointed by the states.46 Guam attempted unsuccessfully in 1984

to have this provision interpreted to permit its citizens to vote in U.S.

presidential elections.47

Residents of Puerto Rico recently litigated the issue, with the same

outcome. In 1994, American citizens in Puerto Rico filed suit contending

that “Puerto Rico[’s] present political status has evolved in such a way

from a Territory in 1898 to that of a ’de facto’ state” that it should be

considered a state entitled to electoral votes.48 The federal district court,

noting the constitutional requirement for state appointment of electors

who then vote for the President, held that only states (and, through the

Twenty-Third Amendment, the District of Columbia)49 may cast electoral

votes in presidential elections.50 The plaintiffs’ argument that Puerto Rico

43Sea-Land Serv. Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan, 505 F. Supp. 533, 545 (D.P.R. 1980).

44Trailer Marine, 977 F.2d at 6.

45Id. at 8.

46U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3

47The Attorney General of Guam argued that American citizens residing in Guam had a right to

participate in presidential elections. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating that

the Constitution “does not grant to American citizens the right to elect the President. . . . Since Guam is

not a state, it can have no electors, and plaintiffs cannot exercise individual votes in a presidential

election. There is no constitutional violation.” Attorney Gen. of Guam v. United States, 738 F.2d 1017,

1019 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985).

48de la Rosa v. United States, 842 F. Supp. 607, 608-09 (D.P.R. 1994), aff’d sub. nom. Igartua De La Rosa

v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 (1995).

49Amendment XXIII of the Constitution provides that the District of Columbia shall appoint electors

who “shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be

electors appointed by a State . . . .”

50de la Rosa, 842 F. Supp. at 608-09.

Page 30 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

has evolved into a “de facto” state was, the court said, a “political

question” not suitable for judicial resolution.51

Although residents of the insular areas cannot vote in presidential

elections, four of the five larger insular areas participate in the

nominations process, which is governed by party rules and local law

rather than by the Constitution. Puerto Rico holds primary elections to

nominate presidential candidates, and sends delegates to the Republican

and Democratic national conventions. Guam sends delegates to the

conventions and also places the names of the presidential and vice

presidential candidates on the general ballot in November to find out who

would have been popularly elected in Guam.52 American Samoa and the

Virgin Islands send delegates to the national conventions. The political

parties in the CNMI are not affiliated with the U.S. Republican or

Democratic parties and do not participate in the presidential nomination

process.

With respect to local elections, an appeal pending in Puerto Rico’s

supreme court asks that court to decide whether Puerto Rico’s electoral

law can restrict voting in local elections to U.S. citizens. The lawsuit had

been filed in an attempt to prevent voting in Puerto Rican elections by an

individual who formally renounced his U.S. citizenship and declared

himself a citizen of Puerto Rico. A lower court, finding that the individual

is a citizen of Puerto Rico, ruled that restricting local voting to U.S.

citizens is contrary to Puerto Rico’s constitution.53

The claim of Puerto Rican citizenship apparently is based, in part, on the

Foraker Act, which provides that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico are

“citizens of Puerto Rico and entitled to the protection of the United

States.”54 The State Department takes the position that the citizenship of

51Id.

52Guam Code, Title III, ch. 7, § 7107. The provision placing the names of the nominees for president

and vice president on the ballot became effective with the 1980 presidential elections.

53Court Ruling Paves Way For Mari Bras to Vote, The San Juan Star, October 22, 1996, at 3.

54Act of April 12, 1900, § 7, ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77, 79 (1900). This provision applies to all inhabitants of

Puerto Rico who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, with the exception of those individuals born

in Spain who elected to retain Spanish allegiance.

Page 31 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

Puerto Rico provision of the Foraker Act has no legal effect today, having

been superseded by later law.55

Fourth and Fifth

Amendments

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and

seizures. No search or arrest warrant may be issued except with probable

cause and the warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched

and persons or things to be seized.56

The rights provided by the Fourth Amendment are generally considered to

be “fundamental,”57 which means that they apply of their own force to all

individuals subject to the sovereignty of the United States. No statute is

necessary to extend them to U.S. territories and possessions. However, in

addition, legislation or local constitutional provisions of each of the larger

insular areas either explicitly apply the Fourth Amendment, or offer

equivalent protections under local law, to insular area residents. The CNMI

Covenant specifically states that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to

the Northern Marianas.58 The Fourth Amendment has been held to apply to

Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico’s Constitution also provides these same

protections.59 The Fourth Amendment is extended to the Virgin Islands

55There has been a succession of laws. Under section 5 of Puerto Rico’s organic act, known as the

Jones Act, 39 Stat. 951, 953 (1917), all citizens of Puerto Rico, as defined under the Foraker Act, and all

native Puerto Ricans temporarily absent on April 11, 1899, are deemed to be U.S. citizens, but any

individual could elect to retain the political status prior to the act by filing, within 6 months, a

declaration in district court. In 1934, all persons born in Puerto Rico, on or after April 11, 1899, “and

not citizens, subjects, or nationals of any foreign power,” were deemed U.S. citizens. Act of June 27,

1934, 48 Stat. 1245. The Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1139, extends U.S. citizenship to all persons

not already U.S. citizens under another law, who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, born in Puerto Rico

on or after April 11, 1899, and residing in territory of the United States on January 13, 1941. Section 302

of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, classified to 8 U.S.C. § 1402, generally restates the 1940

act and adds that persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are U.S. citizens by birth.

56U.S. Const. amend. IV.

57Precisely which constitutional rights are fundamental has been left to a case-by-case determination.

The Supreme Court described fundamental rights as “inherent, although unexpressed principles which

are the basis of all free government . . . .” Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 147 (1904). These

fundamental rights appear to correspond roughly to the “natural rights” earlier described by Justice

White, in a concurring opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 282-83 (1901). Justice White

included among “natural rights” the right to one’s own religious opinion as well as “the right to

personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts

of justice; to due process of law and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from

unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments . . . .” Id. at 282.

58Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America, § 501(a), 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.

59Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 471 (1979); Buenrostro v. Collazo, 973 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1992);

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, art. II, § 10.

Page 32 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

and Guam through their Organic Acts.60 Protections against unreasonable

search and seizure apply to American Samoa through its Revised

Constitution.61

The Fifth Amendment includes the right to indictment by a grand jury;

protection against double jeopardy; the right against self-incrimination; the

right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law; and the right to just compensation for public takings of private

property.62 The Organic Act of the Virgin Islands explicitly extends the

Fifth Amendment to the Virgin Islands, but provides that the right to a

grand jury does not extend to cases prosecuted under Virgin Islands’ law

unless required by that law.63 Although an amendment to Guam’s Organic

Act specifically extends Fifth Amendment rights to Guam,64 the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that this did not deprive the legislature

of Guam of the power to determine whether offenses should be

prosecuted by grand jury indictment or by the less formal process known

as an information.65 The CNMI Covenant, as approved by the Congress,

provides that the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the CNMI, implicitly

including indictment by grand jury, but states that grand jury indictments

are not required for cases based on local law except where required by

local law.66 American Samoa has no specific provision in its Revised

Constitution or local law regarding a right to indictment by grand jury, and

federal law has not extended this right.67 Puerto Rican law does not

provide a right to grand jury indictment.68

6048 U.S.C. §§ 1421b(c),(u) and 1561. See also United States v. Douglas, 854 F.Supp. 383, 385 n.1 (D.V.I.

1994) (“The Fourth Amendment is fully applicable to the Virgin Islands.”)

61Revised Constitution of American Samoa, art. I, § 5.

62U.S. Const. amend. V.

6348 U.S.C. § 1561. Indictment by grand jury or information does apply to crimes prosecuted under

federal law.

6448 U.S.C. § 1421(u).

6548 U.S.C. § 1421b(e), (f), (u); Guam v. Inglett, 417 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 1969).

66Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America, § 501(a), 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.

67Revised Constitution of American Samoa, art. I, § 6 (Fifth Amendment rights); Am. Samoa Code Ann.

§ 46.0502 (1988) (rights of defendants).

68Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 469 (1979); see also Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 306 (1922).

Puerto Rico does empanel grand juries for federal crimes.

Page 33 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy69 has been

discussed in recent cases pertaining to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

In United States v. Sanchez,

70 the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

found that the Double Jeopardy Clause would prevent separate

prosecutions under Puerto Rican law and federal law for the same offense.

The defendants in Sanchez, after having been acquitted in a Puerto Rican

court of multiple criminal charges, were convicted in federal court in

Florida on charges arising out of the same circumstances. On appeal, they

claimed that the Florida prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The United States contended that the first prosecution was undertaken not

by the government of the United States, but under the authority of a

separate sovereign, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and therefore that

the Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply.

The Court of Appeals said that the “crucial question” in determining

whether two entities are separate sovereigns is whether the two derive

their authority to punish from distinct sources of power.71 It concluded

that the Congress’ decision to permit self-governance in Puerto Rico did

not make Puerto Rico a separate sovereign: “Puerto Rico is still

constitutionally a territory, and not a separate sovereign. As a territory,

Puerto Rico remains outside an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause

which is based upon dual sovereignty.”72 The court concluded that, since

Puerto Rico continues to derive its judicial authority from the federal

government, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes prosecutions for the

same offense in both a state and Puerto Rico.73 However, the Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit which, as the appellate court for the federal

69The Double Jeopardy Clause states: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V.

70992 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1993), modified, 3 F.3d 366 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1038

(1994).

71Sanchez, 992 F.2d at 1149 . The court cited the Supreme Court’s discussion of the dual sovereignty

doctrine: “The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an

offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the ’peace

and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each he has committed two distinct ’offenses’.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985). There, the Supreme Court upheld separate prosecutions by

Alabama and Georgia of a man whose single crime was the hiring of two men to kill his pregnant wife.

72Sanchez, 992 F.2d at 1151. The court reasoned: “The development of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico has not given its judicial tribunals a source of punitive authority which is independent of the

United States Congress and derived from an ’inherent sovereignty.’ . . . Despite passage of the Federal

Relations Act and the Puerto Rican Constitution, Puerto Rican courts continue to derive their authority

to punish from the United States Congress and prosecutions do not fall within the dual sovereignty

exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Id. at 1152-53.

73Sanchez, 992 F.2d at 1150. However, the court found that none of the charges in the Florida

prosecution were for the same crimes that had been prosecuted in Puerto Rico, and upheld the

convictions.

Page 34 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

district court in Puerto Rico, hears most federal cases involving Puerto

Rico considers Puerto Rico to have a degree of autonomy sufficient to

make it a separate sovereign for the purpose of permitting successive

criminal prosecutions by the United States and Puerto Rico.74

A 1995 district court decision pertaining to the Virgin Islands reached a

similar result concerning double jeopardy and dual sovereignty.75 The

court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment,

because it is a fundamental right that automatically extends to the

residents of any U.S. territory, applies to the Virgin Islands. With respect to

dual sovereignty, the court noted that, “as an unincorporated territory of

the United States, the Virgin Islands has no inherent or independent

sovereign power.”76 Accordingly, a defendant could not be tried for the

same offense in federal court and in a Virgin Islands court.

Due Process and Equal

Protection Clauses

Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and

equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas. The Due

Process Clause provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.”77 The Equal Protection

Clause requires that people under like circumstances be given the same

protection of the law in the enjoyment of personal rights, liberties, and

property.78

The Congress, through legislation, has explicitly extended due process and

equal protection rights to the Virgin Islands.79 In 1976, the Supreme Court

held that residents of Puerto Rico are accorded the protections of the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment80 or, alternatively, the Due

Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,

74See United States v. Lopez Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1034 (1988);

United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817 (1988); United

States v. Perez-Perez, 72 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1995).

75Government of Virgin Islands v. Schneider, 893 F. Supp. 490 (D.V.I. 1995).

76Id. at 494. The court noted further that “the ’single sovereign’ in the Virgin Islands is allowed only one

bite of the apple—whether acting as the United States or the Government of the Virgin Islands . . . .” Id.

at 495.

77U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, sent. 2, cl. 2.

78U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, sent. 2, cl. 3.

7948 U.S.C. § 1561.

80U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 3.

Page 35 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

although the court declined to decide which.81 American Samoa’s

constitution provides for due process protection.82 In addition, the High

Court of American Samoa has stated that “the constitutional guarantees of

due process and equal protection are fundamental rights which do apply in

the Territory of American Samoa.”83

The due process protections of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Due

Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were

extended to the CNMI through the Covenant, as approved by the Congress.84

In a case pertaining to the CNMI, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

upheld a restriction on transfers of land that had been challenged on equal

protection grounds. The CNMI Constitution makes unlawful certain

long-term transfers of CNMI real estate to people not of Northern Mariana

Islands descent.85 The court reasoned the right to hold long-term interests

in CNMI real estate is not a fundamental constitutional right and, therefore,

did not apply of its own force to the CNMI.

86 Thus, although fundamental

equal protection rights apply in the CNMI, those rights must “narrow to

incorporate the shared beliefs of diverse cultures.”87 The court found that

the Congress had the power under the Territorial Clause to limit

81Examining Bd. v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 600 (1976). The Supreme Court struck down as

violative of equal protection or due process guarantees a Puerto Rican law which restricted the

licensing of civil engineers to those who were U.S. citizens. Id. at 606. The Court has never found it

necessary to determine whether the Fifth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico directly or by operation

of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668

n. 5 (1974).

82Revised Constitution of American Samoa, art. I, § 2.

83Craddick v. Territorial Registrar, App. No. 10-79, 3-5 (H.Ct. App. Div. Apr. 23, 1980). The court found

that due process and equal protection apply to American Samoa through the Fifth Amendment. The

court held constitutional a provision of the American Samoa Code that prohibits the sale of land to

non-Samoans, finding that, although the provision discriminates on the basis of race, the government

of American Samoa had demonstrated a compelling interest in preserving the lands of American

Samoa for Samoans and in preserving Samoan culture, and that the use of a racial classification was

necessary to safeguard those interests. Cf., American Samoa Gov’t v. Falefatu, No. CR63-89, note 9

(H.Ct. Tr. Div. Dec. 5, 1990), quoting Macomber v. American Samoa Gov’t, 12 A.S.R.2d 29, 30

(1989) (“The extent to which the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies in the

territory is unclear.”); American Samoa Gov’t v. Whitney, No. CR26-91 (H.Ct. Tr. Div. Nov. 1, 1991).

84Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the

United States of America, § 501(a), 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note.

85Id. § 805.

86Wabol v. Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450, 1462 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1027 (1992): “The Bill

of Rights was not intended . . . to operate as a genocide pact for diverse native cultures. . . . Its bold

purpose was to protect minority rights, not to enforce homogeneity. Where land is so scarce, so

precious, and so vulnerable to economic predation, it is understandable that the islanders’ vision does

not precisely coincide with mainland attitudes toward property and our commitment to equal

opportunity in its acquisition.” Id. at 1462.

87Id. at 1460.

Page 36 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

nonfundamental rights to accommodate the social and cultural values of

the CNMI.

88

In another case, the court, finding an absence of express authorization

from the Congress in the Covenant or federal statutes, held that there is no

right to bring an action for money damages against the CNMI based solely

on the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also rejected the argument that

direct suit under the Fourteenth Amendment should be permitted because

the CNMI, unlike the states, is not entitled to immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment, which bars suits in federal court for money damages against

a state.89

Both due process and equal protection apply to Guam through a 1968

amendment by the Congress to Guam’s Organic Act.90 In 1992, a federal

appeals court rejected the contention of the government of Guam that the

1968 amendment did not extend substantive due process guarantees to

Guam. The local government had argued that there was no clear

congressional intent in the amendment to extend due process. The court

strongly disagreed.91

Taxation in the Insular

Areas

The Congress has authority to impose income taxes on the worldwide

income of U.S. citizens and corporations, including income from the

insular areas. However, federal individual and corporate income taxes as

such are not currently imposed in the insular areas.92

88Id.

89The suit was brought by a Filipino nurse alleging discrimination on the basis of race or national

origin at the CNMI government-operated health center where she was employed. Magana v. CNMI, 107

F.3d 1436, 1440 (9th Cir. 1997).

9048 U.S.C. § 1421b(u).

91Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 1011 (1992): “It may be true, as Guam argues, that the Supreme Court requires a clear

indication of congressional intent before interpreting a congressional action as extending a right to the

people of Guam. . . . We can scarcely imagine, however, any clearer indication of intent than the

language of the [1968 amendment].” The court affirmed a decision invalidating Guam’s anti-abortion

statute, as violative of substantive due process rights under the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v.

Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

92The Congress is vested with power “to lay and collect Taxes” under Article I, sec. 8, of the

Constitution. Individuals in the insular areas may be subject to Federal income tax laws if they have

U.S. or foreign source income. The Congress authorized Puerto Rico in 1919 to create its own income

tax system, which it has done. Of the other insular areas, only American Samoa has enacted its own

income tax laws. See GAO/HRD-89-104FS, August 9, 1989, and GAO/HRD-91-18, June 20, 1991, for more

detail on taxation in the insular areas.

Page 37 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix I 

Five Insular Areas - An Update

A key feature of federal income tax structure affecting U.S. corporations

doing business in the insular areas has been the Puerto Rico and

Possession Tax Credit (section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code.)93

Enacted in 1976,94 section 936 was for the purpose of assisting “the U.S.

possessions in obtaining employment-producing investments by U.S.

corporations.”95 The section 936 tax credit, as originally enacted, was

equal to the full amount of the U.S. income tax liability on territory-source

business income earned by qualified firms.96 In addition, the provision

exempted from federal taxation the income from qualified investments of

profits earned in the insular areas by section 936 firms. This tax credit was

limited by legislation approved in 1993 by the 103d Congress97 and was

repealed in the 104th Congress by the Small Business Job Protection Act

of 1996,98 subject to a 10-year transition period beginning in 1996.99

9326 U.S.C. § 936.

94Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455.

95S. Rep. No. 94-938, Part I, at 279 (1976).

96Firms qualified for the credit if, over a 3-year period, 80 percent or more of their gross income was

derived from sources within a territory and 75 percent or more was derived from the active conduct of

a trade or business within a territory.

97The administration in 1993, as part of its comprehensive economic plan, proposed to reduce the

amount of the credit. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, § 13227(a),

provided that, after 1993, firms were to calculate the credit as under prior law, but the credit would be

capped.

98Pub. L. No. 104-188, § 1601.

99Credits under section 936 attributable to qualified possessions-source investment income are

eliminated for income earned after June 30, 1996.

Page 38 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

The United States claims sovereignty over nine small insular areas,1 with

land masses ranging in size from less than one acre to somewhat more

than two square miles. The nine are Palmyra Atoll, Navassa Island,

Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef,

Midway Atoll, and Wake Atoll.2

 All but Navassa Island, in the Caribbean

Sea, are in the Pacific Ocean. Many are natural atolls, which are coral reefs

with exposed islands that enclose a central lagoon. (We often refer to

these insular areas collectively or individually as islands.)

Except for Midway and Wake Atolls, all the islands were claimed for the

United States under the Guano Islands Act of 1856.3

 Guano is seabird

droppings; rich in phosphates and minerals, it is used in fertilizer. The act

provides for the discoverer of a guano island, if the island is uninhabited

and not within the jurisdiction of any other government, to receive the

exclusive right to mine the guano for use by U.S. citizens. Rights under the

act extend not just to the discoverer of a guano island but to his or her

surviving spouse or heirs, or to anyone to whom he or she has assigned

rights to the discovery.4

1

U.S. sovereignty over two other insular areas, Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is

disputed. Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo are in the Caribbean Sea, located approximately 180 miles

southwest from the southern coast of Jamaica. Serranilla Bank is a roughly circular coral bank; on its

southeast side are three small coral-and-sand keys, or low islands, the largest of which is a half mile in

length. Bajo Nuevo, an oval-shaped coral bank situated northeast from Serranilla Bank, has two reefs;

at both ends of each reef are small keys, the largest of which is about 300 by 50 yards in size. The

United States has long maintained claims to both Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo under the Guano

Islands Act. Both areas are claimed by Columbia and Jamaica. Serranilla Bank is also claimed by

Honduras. Nicaragua has not claimed these areas by name, but has stated that it claims all islands and

cays located on its continental shelf; however, there is no agreed maritime boundary between

Nicaragua and Columbia, or between Nicaragua and Honduras, in the Western Caribbean. Currently,

the United States conducts maritime law enforcement operations in and around Serranilla Bank and

Bajo Nuevo consistent with U.S. sovereignty claims.

2

Some residents of the Stewart Islands in the Solomon Islands group, which is located northeast of

Australia and east of Papua New Guinea, claim that they are native Hawaiians and U.S. citizens. (See

figure 1.) They base their claim on the assertion that the Stewart Islands were ceded to King

Kamehameha IV and accepted by him as part of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1856 and, thus, were part of

the Republic of Hawaii (which was declared in 1893) when it was annexed to the United States by law

in 1898. The 1898 law identifies the islands being annexed only as the “Hawaiian Islands and their

dependencies.” However, the annexation was based on the report of the Hawaiian Commission which

did not include the Stewart Islands among the islands it identified as part of the Republic of Hawaii.

Report of the Hawaiian Commission, S. Doc. No. 16, 55th Cong., at 4 (3d Sess. 1898). In 1996, some

Stewart Islands residents applied to register to vote in a plebescite limited to Native Hawaiians. Their

requests for ballots, however, were rejected by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Election Council.

3

The Guano Islands Act appears at 48 U.S.C. §§ 1411-19. Although claims were made to Palmyra Atoll

and Kingman Reef under the act, the presence of guano in either area is doubtful. Legal Adviser’s

Office, U.S. Department of State, The Sovereignty of Islands Claimed Under the Guano Act and of the

Northwest and Hawaiian Islands, Midway, and Wake at 612-15, 624-25 (1933) [hereinafter Sovereignty].

4

48 U.S.C. §§ 1411-13. See generally Johnson’s [sic] Islands, 9 Op. Att’y Gen. 364, 367 (1859) (discussing

the conditions that must be satisfied under the act to establish a claim to a guano island); Duncan v.

Navassa Phosphate Company, 137 U.S. 647 (1891).

Page 39 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

The Guano Islands Act authorizes the President to determine, on

application, that a guano island is to be “considered as appertaining to the

United States.”5

 Once that determination is made, the President may use

U.S. military forces to protect the rights of the discoverer, or of those who

derive their rights from the discoverer. However, the law does not obligate

the United States to retain possession of a guano island after the guano

has been removed.6

The application of the Constitution to islands claimed under the Guano

Islands Act is to be determined under the general law governing U.S.

territories and possessions. The Guano Islands Act does not discuss the

application of the Constitution to the islands claimed under its authority;

its only reference to the application of federal law is to provide that

criminal acts on the islands are to be treated as if they were committed on

U.S. vessels on the high seas.7

All nine small insular areas are “unorganized.” That is, no legislation exists

providing for organization of a local government. Indeed, these insular

areas have no native population to form a government, they lack any

source of fresh running water, and are otherwise inhospitable to

self-sustaining habitation.

5

48 U.S.C. § 1411.

6

48 U.S.C. § 1419.

7

48 U.S.C. § 1417.

Page 40 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.1: Palmyra Atoll

Reef

Island

Legend

West Lagoon

Center Lagoon

East Lagoon

Home Island

Sand Island

Strawn Island

Cooper Island

North Pacific Ocean

Palmyra Atoll Palmyra is an atoll in the Pacific, approximately 1,000 miles south of the

main Hawaiian group of islands. It consists of about 50 islets in an atoll

grouping covering an area, including water, approximately 6 miles wide

and 1 mile long. Figure II.1 shows the geography of Palmyra. The atoll is

privately owned and generally is uninhabited except for a caretaker.8

Discovered in 1802 by the captain of the American ship Palmyra, the atoll

was not claimed until 60 years later, by Captain Bent, for the Kingdom of

Hawaii.9

 Captain Bent conveyed whatever interest he had in Palmyra by

8

The Department of Interior has responsibility for Palmyra under executive order. Exec. Order No.

10,967, 26 Fed. Reg. 9667 (1961).

9

Palmyra previously had been claimed in 1860 under the Guano Islands Act. The claim, however, does

not appear to have been accepted as valid. It is unlikely that the claimant landed on the island or that

there was ever any guano on it. Sovereignty, supra note 3, at 612-15, 875.

Page 41 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

deed in 1862. Palmyra was later purchased by the Fullard-Leo family of

Hawaii.10

The Navy sought, beginning in 1938, to lease Palmyra from the

Fullard-Leos, but negotiations were never completed.11 In 1939, the

Congress authorized the construction of naval aviation facilities on

Palmyra to serve military purposes in the Pacific,12 and the United States

filed suit to establish its title to Palmyra. It argued that the atoll, having

been annexed by it in 1898, belonged to the United States and not to the

Fullard-Leos. After a protracted legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled in

favor of the Fullard-Leo family in 1947.13

10The deed of conveyance of Captain Bent was recorded in 1885. Rights to Palmyra were sold to the

Pacific Navigation Company (which paid taxes to the Kingdom of Hawaii for Palmyra from 1885 to

1888). The company’s rights were conveyed by 1911 to Judge Henry Cooper. Judge Cooper petitioned

the Land Court of the Territory of Hawaii to confirm his title. The Attorney General of the Territory

disclaimed any territorial interest in the land and, in 1912, the Land Court decreed that Judge Cooper

was the owner of Palmyra. Judge Cooper sold parts of the atoll to Leslie and Ellen Fullard-Leo, parents

of the current owners, in 1922, for $15,000. Over the next few years, the Fullard-Leos acquired all of the

atoll, except for two of the atoll’s islets, which were retained by Judge Cooper’s heirs.

11A letter from the Department of the Navy, dated April 1, 1953, indicates that the Navy suspended

negotiations after a 1939 Attorney General opinion concluded that Palmyra was U.S. public land and

that the Fullard-Leo claim was invalid. S. Rep. No. 83-886 at 37 (1954).

12The Act of April 25, 1939, ch. 87, 53 Stat. 590, authorized the Secretary of the Navy to establish,

develop, or increase naval aviation facilities at various locations, including Midway, Wake, Johnston,

and Palmyra Islands.

13United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256 (1947). While the suit was pending during World War II, the

Navy occupied Palmyra and built a runway and several buildings. In December 1940, President

Roosevelt ordered Palmyra placed under the control and jurisdiction of the Navy and used for naval

purposes. In 1941, the President included it in the naval defensive sea area established to protect

Hawaii. Exec. Order No. 8682, 6 Fed. Reg. 1015 (1941); corr’d, Exec. Order No. 8729, 6 Fed. Reg. 1792

(1941).

Page 42 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.2: Hawaii

Nihoa

Hawaii Kaula

Niihau

Necker

St. Rogatien

Brooks Bank Bank

French Frigate Shoals

Northampton

Banks

Neva

Shoal

Pioneer

Bank Laysan Maro

Reef Raita

Bank Gardner

Pinnacles

Salmon

Bank Lisianski

Gambia

Shoal

Kure Atoll Ladd 

Bank

Pearl and Hermes Reef Midway 

Islands

Kauai

Oahu

Molokai

Maui Lanai

Kahoolawe

Hawaii

Honolulu

(Ocean Island)

Palmyra Not Included in

State of Hawaii

The Republic of Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898 through

a treaty ratified by the Hawaiian Senate and accepted by the U.S.

Congress.14 At that time, Palmyra had been identified as part of the

Republic of Hawaii.15 In April 1900, the Congress extended the

Constitution to the Territory of Hawaii and declared its residents to be

U.S. citizens.16 On March 18, 1959, the Hawaiian Statehood Act was passed

and, on August 21, 1959, Hawaii became the 50th state of the Union. The

act said that the “State of Hawaii shall consist of all the islands . . .

included in the Territory of Hawaii on the date of enactment of this Act,

14Act of July 7, 1898, ch. 55, 30 Stat. 750.

15U.S. Senate, Report of the Hawaiian Commission, S. Doc. No. 16, 55th Cong., at 4 (3d Sess. 1898).

16Act of April 30, 1900, ch. 339, §§ 4-5.

Page 43 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

except the atoll known as Palmyra Island.”17 (The act also provided that

the state of Hawaii “shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands,

Johnston Island, Sand Island (offshore from Johnston Island), or Kingman

Reef . . . .18)

We have found several explanations for the exclusion of Palmyra from the

state of Hawaii. The Senate report on the Hawaii Statehood Act

recommended that Palmyra not be made part of the state. That report

suggests that distance was the primary factor; it acknowledged that

Palmyra had historically been part of the Republic of Hawaii but noted

that Palmyra is separated from the nearest island on the Hawaiian

Archipelago “by more than 800 miles of open ocean.”19 A somewhat related

reason emerges from the Senate hearings on Hawaiian statehood:

Palmyra . . . is technically today a part of the city limits of the city of Honolulu. . . . [We]

excluded [Palmyra from the state] in deference to my friend from California who felt that

Los Angeles might be discriminated against. That would have been the longest city limits in

the world of any incorporated city, extending 1,500 miles to Palmyra.20

Another account adds that in addition to its distance from Honolulu,

Palmyra is uninhabited and separated from the Hawaiian chain by many

miles of international waters.21

17Pub. Law No. 86-3, § 2, 73 Stat. 4 (1959). Pearl and Hermes Reef, an atoll in the northwestern part of

the Hawaiian chain near Midway Atoll, was included in the state of Hawaii in 1959 as part of the

Territory of Hawaii, although it was not listed among the islands comprising the Republic of Hawaii by

the Hawaiian Commission in 1898, when Hawaii was annexed by the United States. This may have

been an oversight. Pearl and Hermes Reef was included in a list of the Hawaiian Islands and

dependencies prepared in 1893 by the Commissioner of the Hawaiian Provisional Government.

Sovereignty, supra note 3, at 914. In 1909, the U.S. government designated the area as a wildlife refuge

(Exec. Order No. 1019 (1909)).

18Id. The legislative history of Hawaii’s statehood act indicates there was some doubt, particularly with

respect to Johnston and Midway, as to which islands had been part of the Territory of Hawaii. A 1953

interagency conference to discuss this issue favored including all islands within a described perimeter;

the Interior Department suggested excluding Johnston and Kingman Reef, but including Palmyra; the

Navy, which had sole control of Midway, proposed specifically excluding that island from the new

state. S. Rep. No. 83-886, at 38 (1954).

19S. Rep. No. 83-886, at 16 (1954). Ocean (Kure) Island, part of the Territory of Hawaii, was included in

the state of Hawaii, although it is further from Honolulu than is Palmyra. Ocean Island, however, is

within the Hawaiian island chain.

20Statehood for Hawaii, Hearings on S.50 Before the Subcomm. on Territories and Insular Affairs, 86th

Cong. 59 (1959) (statement of Sen. Jackson).

21100 Cong. Rec. 3485-91 (1954) (statements of Sens. Jackson, Stennis, Anderson, and Daniel).

Page 44 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Does the United States

Constitution Apply in Full

to Palmyra?

It is not at issue that the Constitution applied in its entirety to Palmyra

between 1900 and 1959. There is no clear reason why the Constitution

would not continue to apply today.22

Palmyra was part of the Territory of Hawaii to which the Congress

specifically extended the Constitution in 1900.23 Thus, Palmyra became an

incorporated territory at that time. The Supreme Court has suggested, in

similar circumstances, that once the benefits of the Constitution in its

entirety have been extended to an area, the Congress may not withdraw

them.24 The Court, noting that land was carved from Maryland and Virginia

to form the District of Columbia, observed that: “This District had been a

part of the States of Maryland and Virginia. It had been subject to the

Constitution, and was a part of the United States. The Constitution had

attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken

backward.”25 Because this question was not before the Court, those

remarks do not constitute a binding precedent.

In any event, the case for continued application of the Constitution to

Palmyra is strong without reference to this Supreme Court decision. The

Constitution was extended to Palmyra by law. As discussed above,

Palmyra was excluded from the state of Hawaii and the law extending the

Constitution to Palmyra remains in effect. It seems likely, therefore, that

the courts would conclude that the Constitution continues to apply to

Palmyra.

22Section 4 of the 1900 law which extended the Constitution to the Territory of Hawaii, of which

Palmyra was then part, has never been amended or repealed. Palmyra’s exclusion from the state of

Hawaii left it as the only area remaining in the Territory of Hawaii after the rest achieved statehood.

While this designation is not legally authoritative, Palmyra is listed in the Central Intelligence Agency’s

World Fact Book (1996 ed.) as an incorporated territory of the United States.

23Act of April 30, 1900, ch. 339, § 4.

24See Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 529-530 (1905) (Harlan, J., concurring) (“Congress

cannot suspend the operation of the Constitution in any territory after it has come under the sovereign

authority of the United States.”); id. at 536 (Brown, J., concurring) (The Congress can deal with the

territories as it pleases until it extends to them the provisions of the Constitution, “which, once done,

in my view, is irrevocable.”)

25Downes, 182 U.S. at 261, commenting on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Loughborough v. Blake,

18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820). In Loughborough, the Court found that the Congress could impose a

direct tax for general purposes on the District of Columbia. Downes involved a dispute over whether

customs duties imposed on goods imported from Puerto Rico had to be uniform with those imposed

on goods traveling between the states. The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution,

at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties could

be applied.

Page 45 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.3: Navassa Island

Lighthouse

LULU BAY

Navassa Island

Lighthouse

Caribbean Sea

Page 46 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Navassa Island Navassa is a pear-shaped island in the Caribbean Sea between Haiti and

Jamaica about 100 miles south of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The land area of

Navassa exceeds two square miles and the island is marked by imposing

limestone cliffs on all sides, rising 10 to 150 feet above sea level. It is

almost completely surrounded by a reef that impedes access to it except

through a narrow gap. Figure II.3 illustrates the geography of Navassa.

Navassa was discovered by Peter Duncan, who claimed the island for the

United States in 1857, under the Guano Islands Act of 1856.26 Navassa is

also claimed by Haiti, Cuba, Columbia, Jamaica, Mexico, and Honduras.

Haiti has claimed the island in its constitution and in documents

describing its official boundaries. However, the United States has viewed

Navassa as its possession since 1857, and has disputed the claims of Haiti

and all the other claimants since then.

Navassa Island has come to the attention of the Supreme Court through

two cases, the better-known of which, Jones v. United States,

27 involved

the question of whether a federal court in the United States had

jurisdiction over a crime committed on Navassa. The defendant Jones, a

laborer employed by the Navassa Phosphate Company, took part in a riot

on Navassa in 1889 in which one of the company officers was killed.28

Jones was tried and convicted in federal court in Baltimore for the murder.

The Guano Islands Act provides that guano islands claimed on behalf of

the United States may “be considered as appertaining to the United

States,” and that any crime committed on such an island would be deemed

as having been committed on the high seas on board a U.S. vessel and be

punished according to the laws of the United States.29 The Supreme Court

found that the Secretary of State had properly proclaimed Navassa as a

possession of the United States based on Peter Duncan’s petition filed

under the Guano Islands Act, and that the district court in Baltimore had

proper jurisdiction.30 In reaching its decision, the Court observed:

2648 U.S.C. §§ 1411-19.

27137 U.S. 202 (1890).

28Jones, 137 U.S. at 204. The testimony at trial and in later accounts indicated that conditions on the

island for the workers were grim. The officers that supervised the laborers meted out severe discipline,

rations were poor, and living conditions were brutal. Jimmy M. Skaggs, The Great Guano Rush at

175-77 (1994). The workers’ contracts stated that they could be kept on the island at the company’s

pleasure for up to 15 months. Jones, 137 U.S. at 207.

2948 U.S.C. §§ 1411, 1417.

30Jones, 137 U.S. at 211.

Page 47 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

By the law of nations, recognized by all civilized States, dominion of new territory may be

acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest; and when citizens

or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its authority or with its assent, take and hold

actual, continuous and useful possession, (although only for the purpose of carrying on a

particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or working mines,) of territory

unoccupied by any other government or its citizens, the nation to which they belong may

exercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over territory so acquired.31

In the second case, Peter Duncan’s widow claimed profits from the

Navassa Phosphate Company or, in the alternative, possession of part of

the island. Peter Duncan’s interest in Navassa had been assigned to the

Navassa Phosphate Company. Duncan’s widow based her claim on her

dower right, the interest in her husband’s property that a widow had under

the law at that time.

In holding that Mrs. Duncan had no property right to the island,32 the

Supreme Court observed that nothing in the Guano Islands Act obliges the

United States to retain possession of islands claimed under the act after

the guano is removed. With respect to the discoverer, the only right the act

confers is “a license to occupy the island to remove the guano; this right

cannot last after the guano is removed.”33 Moreover, by the express terms

of the act, this right can be terminated at any time “at the pleasure of the

Congress.”34

In 1913, the Congress provided funds to build a lighthouse on Navassa to

safeguard the increased number of ships passing the area following the

opening of the Panama Canal.35 President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed in

1916 that, pursuant to the United States’ original claim under the Guano

Islands Act of 1856 and subsequent congressional action in the

Appropriation Act of 1913 providing for the construction of a lighthouse,

Navassa was reserved for “lighthouse purposes . . . deemed necessary in

the public interest.”36

31Id. at 212.

32Duncan v. Navassa Phosphate Company, 137 U.S. 647 (1891).

33Id. at 651-652.

34Id.

35Appropriations Act of 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 224 (1913).

36Presidential Proclamation, No. 1321, Jan. 17, 1916. The lighthouse later was converted to an

unmanned beacon, which remained in operation until 1996.

Page 48 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

The status of Navassa has recently come under scrutiny. In August of 1996,

after determining that a light on Navassa was no longer needed in view of

advances in electronic navigation, the Coast Guard deactivated the light

and removed signs indicating the island was a restricted area. On

January 16, 1997, the Secretary of the Interior delegated responsibility for

the civil administration of Navassa to the Office of Insular Affairs.37

Following the removal of the light and the signs by the Coast Guard in

August 1996, an American salvager presented a claim to Navassa to the

Department of State under the Guano Islands Act. On March 27, 1997, the

Department of the Interior, having in the meantime assumed

administrative jurisdiction over Navassa, denied the claimant’s application

for an exclusive permit to mine guano on the island. The Department

concluded that the Guano Islands Act applies only to islands which, at the

time of the claim, are not “appertaining to” the United States. The

Department’s opinion said that Navassa is and remains a U.S. possession

“appertaining to” the United States and is “unavailable to be claimed”

under the Guano Islands Act. The opinion also concluded that, even if the

Guano Islands Act could be construed to permit the federal government to

grant patents to mine guano on islands already within the possession of

the United States, the Department would reject such an application on

policy grounds.

37Secretary’s Order No. 3205, Department of the Interior, Jan. 16, 1997. Formal transfer of the island

from the Coast Guard to the Department of Interior is in process. The Secretary of the Interior bases

jurisdiction on 43 U.S.C. § 1458, which authorizes the Secretary to exercise all the powers and perform

all the duties in relation to the territories which, prior to March 1, 1873, were carried out by the

Secretary of State, either by law or custom.

Page 49 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.4: Johnston Atoll

Shallow Water

Reef

Island

Legend

Akau

Island

Sand

Island

Johnston Island

Lagoon

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Reef awash

Reef awash

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Numerous coral heads

Submerged coral reef

and numerous coral heads

Hikina

Island

North Pacific Ocean

Page 50 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Johnston Atoll Johnston Atoll is located about 700 miles west-southwest of Honolulu. It

consists today of two natural islands, Sand and Johnston, and two

manmade islets, North and East (also known as Akau and Hikina),

enclosed by an egg-shaped reef approximately twenty-one miles in

circumference. Figure II.4 shows the geography of Johnston Atoll.

Although first discovered in 1796, the atoll was not formally claimed for

the United States until March 1858 by the captain of the schooner

Palestine. The schooner had been chartered by two Americans, William

Parker and R. F. Ryan, specifically to find Johnston and Sand Islands and,

if guano were discovered, to claim them under the Guano Islands Act. The

atoll was located, the presence of guano was confirmed, a flag was raised,

and signs were erected stating that the entire area was claimed for the

United States and for the owners and charterers of the schooner.

The American claim was at first disputed. In June 1858, Samuel Allen,

sailing on the Kalama under the Hawaiian flag and representing the

Kingdom of Hawaii, tore down the U.S. flag and signs on Johnston Atoll

and raised the Hawaiian flag. On July 27, 1858, the atoll was declared part

of the domain of King Kamehameha IV. However, several months later,

King Kamehameha revoked the lease on guano he had granted to Allen

when he learned that the atoll had been claimed previously by the United

States.

A large amount of guano was removed from the atoll during the next 50

years,38 but by 1920, Johnston and Sand Islands had been abandoned. As a

result of a biological survey conducted by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and the Bernice Paushi Bishop Museum of Honolulu in 1923,

President Calvin Coolidge designated Johnston and Sand Islands a bird

refuge.39 In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt placed Johnston, Sand, and

Wake Islands and Kingman Reef under the control of the Secretary of the

Navy.40 Johnston and Sand Islands remained under the additional

jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture for purposes of serving as a

bird refuge.

With the advent of World War II, the airspace above and the waters within

the three-mile marine boundaries of Johnston and Sand Islands were

38The Attorney General ruled in 1859 that Parker, who claimed the atoll for the United States under the

Guano Islands Act, had made the claim on behalf of the Pacific Guano Company, in which he was a

shareholder, and that Pacific Guano had exclusive rights to the guano. 9 Op. Att’y Gen. 364 (1859).

39Exec. Order No. 4467 (1923).

40Exec. Order No. 6935 (1934).

Page 51 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

designated a naval defensive area by President Roosevelt.41 During the

course of the war, Sand and Johnston Islands were developed as a military

air base and also served as a submarine refueling base. The atoll was

heavily used during the war and, as use of the atoll increased, so too did

the land area; the military dredged coral from the lagoon to increase the

length of the runways.

In 1948, the Secretary of the Navy transferred operational control of the

atoll to the Air Force.42 Over the next 10 years, the atoll was used by the

Coast Guard as well as the Air Force and continued coral fill construction

expanded the atoll by 25 acres. In 1958, two high-altitude nuclear tests

were launched from the atoll. Nuclear testing resumed in 1962 with an

agreement granting control of the atoll to the Atomic Energy Commission

for the Pacific Atomic Tests.

Between 1963 and 1964, the actual acreage of Johnston and Sand islands

was increased from 198 acres to 591 acres; additionally, two man-made

islands were created—North (Akau) and East (Hikina)—adding another 24

and 17 acres respectively. At that time, the decision was made to refer to

the area collectively as Johnston Atoll.

Between 1964 and 1973, the Air Force was an active presence on the atoll.

In 1973, the Air Force agreed with the Defense Nuclear Agency that the

latter would assume operational control of the atoll.

Johnston Atoll remains under the operational control of the Defense

Nuclear Agency. It is a storage and disposal site for chemical munitions

and a standby test site for atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. It remains

a bird refuge, with the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the

Interior having taken over the duties previously assigned to the

Department of Agriculture.

41Exec. Order No. 8682, 6 Fed. Reg. 1015 (1941); Exec. Order No. 8729, 6 Fed. Reg. 1792 (1941).

42Order of the Secretary of the Navy, Op24B, Serial 349P24, 15 July 1948, as reprinted in LTC Lawrence

R. Bauer, A History of Johnston Atoll: 1796-1964, at fig. 7 (1965).

Page 52 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.5: Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands

Reef

Island

Legend

Equator

Equator

Equator

Equator

Jarvis

Baker Howland

Howland

Island

Amelia

Earhart

Beacon

Baker

Island

Boat

Landing

Boat

Landing

Jarvis Island

Pacific Ocean

Page 53 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Baker Island Baker Island is approximately one mile long and 1500 yards wide,

surrounded by a narrow reef. This small uninhabited island is located near

the equator, about 1,650 miles southwest of Honolulu. Figure II.5

illustrates the geography of Baker Island.

Baker Island was first sighted by the captain of an American whaling ship,

Michael Baker, in 1832. He marked it on a map and named it New

Nantucket. In 1839, Captain Baker returned to the area and landed on

Baker to bury a crew member. While there, he claimed the island and

raised an American flag. In 1855, Baker sold his interest in Baker Island to

a group who later formed the American Guano Company. American Guano

claimed Baker Island in 1856 under the Guano Islands Act, and mined

guano there until the 1880s, after which the island was abandoned.

In 1936, President Roosevelt placed Baker Island, along with nearby Jarvis

and Howland Islands, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the

Interior.43 An interest in developing these islands for commercial aviation

stop-overs, as well as in firmly establishing an American presence, resulted

in military personnel and Hawaiian employees being placed at each of the

islands for several months at a time. In 1942, however, following threat of

sea and air attacks by Japanese forces, civilians were evacuated.

In July 1943, American troops built a new airstrip on Baker Island as a

forward area defense post. In September of that year, the base was

occupied and the original landing strip was lengthened to permit bombers

to land. The island housed 120 officers and 2,000 men. In March 1944,

considered no longer necessary to the war effort, it was evacuated. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was given administrative responsibility for

Baker Island in 1974, and the island became a wildlife refuge. Public use is

restricted to scientists and educators, by special permit.

Howland Island Howland Island, a small coral island near the equator, lies 36 miles

northwest of Baker Island. It is about two miles long, with an average

width of a half mile, and is surrounded by a narrow reef. Howland’s land

area is approximately 400 acres. Figure II.5 shows the geography of

Howland Island.

Howland was discovered in 1842 by a New England whaler, George

Netcher, who named it after the look-out who spotted it. Howland was

uninviting, with no natural anchorages and overrun with rats from an old

43Exec. Order No. 7368, 1 Fed. Reg. 405 (1936).

Page 54 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

shipwreck. However, the guano deposits, when analyzed, were richer than

those on either Baker or Jarvis Islands. Netcher and a friend contacted

Alfred Benson who was, at the time, employed by the American Guano

Company as its president. In 1857, Benson sent his son Arthur on a voyage

to inspect and claim guano islands. Arthur Benson sailed to Howland and

claimed it for Alfred Benson and some associates, not for the American

Guano Company. Shortly thereafter Alfred Benson resigned from

American Guano and formed his own guano company.

A legal battle ensued over the guano rights on Howland Island between the

American Guano Company and Alfred Benson, who by then was its

competitor. Alfred Benson landed on Howland Island in 1861 and expelled

employees of American Guano who were mining there. The State

Department refused to intervene to determine the rights of the parties. The

court that heard the dispute found that mere discovery did not convey title

and that, while American Guano had spent money and erected buildings, it

could not exclude Benson’s company from similarly exploiting the island.44

 The two companies were forced to co-exist. By 1878, however, Howland’s

guano reserves were largely depleted and the island was abandoned.

In 1936, Howland Island was placed under the jurisdiction of the Secretary

of the Interior, and military personnel and Hawaiian civilian employees

were brought there. The island had a role in the ill-fated round-the-world

flight attempt of Amelia Earhart. An airstrip and a lighthouse were

constructed on Howland as a refueling site for the flight. Earhart and her

navigator left Papua New Guinea on July 2, 1937 for Howland, but were

never seen again. The lighthouse was partially destroyed during World War

II, but has been rebuilt in memory of Earhart. Civilians were evacuated

from Howland Island in 1942 following sea and air attacks by Japanese

forces.

Howland Island has been administered since 1974 by the Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, as a wildlife refuge. Access is

restricted by permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jarvis Island Jarvis Island is about two miles long and a little over one mile wide, with a

narrow fringing reef. This uninhabited island lies just below the equator

about 1,350 miles south of Honolulu. Figure II.5 shows the geography of

Howland Island.

44American Guano Co. v. U.S. Guano Co., 44 Barbour’s Reports 23 (N.Y. 1865).

Page 55 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

The island was first sighted in 1832 by the American whaler, Michael

Baker, who also discovered Baker Island. Baker found guano on Jarvis

Island and claimed the island for the United States. In 1855, Baker sold his

interest in Jarvis to a group who later formed the American Guano

Company. The company claimed Jarvis as a guano island in 1856 under the

Guano Islands Act. Guano was mined there intermittently into the 1880s

after which, most of the guano reserves having been depleted, the island

was abandoned by the company.

In 1936, President Roosevelt placed Jarvis Island under the jurisdiction of

the Secretary of the Interior.45 A small group of military personnel and

Hawaiian civilians occupied Jarvis until 1942 when they were removed in

anticipation of a possible Japanese attack.

Administrative responsibility for Jarvis Island was transferred from the

Department of the Interior’s Office of Territorial Affairs to its Fish and

Wildlife Service in 1974. Today, Jarvis is a wildlife refuge to which access

is restricted by permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

45Exec. Order No. 7368, 1 Fed. Reg. 405 (1936).

Page 56 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.6: Kingman Reef

Shallow Water

Submerged Reef

Exposed Reef

Legend La Paloma Channel

Lagoon

Exposed

Reef

North Pacific Ocean

Kingman Reef Kingman Reef is a small, low-lying, roughly triangular atoll approximately

900 miles south of Honolulu and 35 miles north of Palmyra. Kingman Reef

has a maximum elevation of about one meter and is awash most of the

time. It has a deep interior lagoon that occasionally has been used by

seaplanes, but its reef is a maritime hazard and the atoll is unusable for

practical purposes. Kingman remains uninhabited. It is currently

administered by the U.S. Navy. Figure II.6 illustrates the geography of

Kingman Reef.

First discovered in 1798 by an American whaler, Kingman Reef was

claimed in 1860 by the U.S. Guano Company, although there is no evidence

that guano existed or was ever mined there. The atoll was claimed again in

Page 57 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

1922 by Lorrin Thurston on behalf of the Palmyra Copra Company for use

as a fishing base.46

The State Department concluded in 1933, in a study of islands claimed

under the Guano Islands Act, that claims made under the act to Kingman

Reef were not valid.47 However, an American had initially discovered

Kingman and no other nation claimed it. In 1934, President Franklin

Roosevelt placed the reef under the control of the Navy, formally asserting

American rights to it.48 During World War II, Kingman was included in a

naval defensive area established by President Roosevelt.49 In 1950, the

Congress enacted a law making Kingman Reef, along with several other

insular areas, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in

Honolulu for purposes of any criminal or civil cases that might arise

there.50

46The president of the Palmyra Development Company, which holds a long-term lease on Palmyra, told

us that the Palmyra Copra Company, in 1922, ceded all rights to Kingman Reef to Leslie and Ellen

Fullard-Leo. He said that the Fullard-Leo family of Hawaii paid property taxes on the atoll to the city

and county of Honolulu from 1922 to 1959, when Hawaii achieved statehood. Navy personnel

searching Hawaiian land records in 1986 were unable to find any formal record of a conveyance of

Kingman Reef to the Fullard-Leos.

47Sovereignty, supra note 3, at 876.

48Exec. Order No. 6935 (1934).

49Exec. Order No. 8682, 6 Fed. Reg. 1015 (1941).

50Act of June 15, 1950, ch. 253, 64 Stat. 217, 48 U.S.C. § 644a. The other U.S. insular areas currently

subject to the court’s jurisdiction are the Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Island, Sand Island,

Palmyra Island, Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island.

Page 58 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.7: Midway Atoll

Reef/Shallow Water

Island

Legend

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Submerged coral reef

Eastern Island Spit Island

Sand Island

Welles Harbor

Lagoon

North Pacific Ocean

Midway Atoll Midway is a coral atoll located 1,200 miles northeast of Honolulu. It

consists of two main islands, Sand and Eastern. Figure II.7 shows the

geography of Midway. It was originally discovered in July 1859, by Captain

N.C. Brooks and named “Middle Brook Islands.” However, Captain Brooks

never officially claimed the island. In 1867, the U.S. Navy sent Captain

Page 59 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

William Reynolds to claim the islands for the United States in order to

establish a Pacific coaling station.51 In 1869, the Congress appropriated

$50,000 for making Midway Island into a naval station and for enlarging

the channel through the reef into the lagoon.52

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that

placed Midway under the jurisdiction and control of the U. S. Navy.53

Construction of a naval air station began in 1940, and the station was

commissioned on August 1, 1941. On December 7, 1941, the day Pearl

Harbor was bombed, Midway was attacked by a Japanese raiding party of

four ships. In June 1942, a Japanese naval task force approached Midway.

In the ensuing battle, a U.S. carrier group and aircraft from Midway

withstood the all-out attack by a numerically-superior Japanese group and

sank four Japanese aircraft carriers. One American carrier was lost, but

this defeat of the Japanese is considered the turning point of the war in the

Pacific.

Following World War II, the Navy continued to have jurisdiction over

Midway and maintained it as an air base. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Navy

began the phase-out of operations on the atoll. In 1993, the decision was

made to close the military facility at Midway.54 To permit closure and new

use of the atoll, environmental impact studies were carried out. The

studies indicated widespread contamination from a variety of man-made

materials to the environment and the native wildlife.

The Navy transferred administrative control of the atoll to the Fish and

Wildlife Service on October 31, 1996.55 The Fish and Wildlife Service

oversaw the clean-up of the island by the Navy. Clean-up was completed in

June 1997, and the Navy departed on July 1, 1997. The Fish and Wildlife

Service now has sole federal responsibility for the atoll and has decided to

open the island for limited eco-tourism. A lease has been granted to the

51Apparently, the Kingdom of Hawaii did not claim Midway. In 1887, the Hawaiian Foreign Minister, in

a note sent to the United States informing the Secretary of State that formal possession had been taken

of Ocean Island in the name of the King of Hawaii, stated that the King claimed all the islands and

islets which form the chain of the Hawaiian group extending from the Island of Nihoa to Ocean Island,

except Midway Island. The United States did not formally respond. Sovereignty, supra note 3, at 924.

52Navy Appropriations Act for 1870, ch. 48, 15 Stat. 276, 279 (1869); S. Rep. No. 194, 40th Cong. (3d

Sess. 1869).

53Exec. Order No. 199-A (1903).

54Pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988,

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the mission of the Naval Air Station

on Midway be eliminated. In 1993, the Base Closure Commission agreed with the Secretary’s

recommendation and operations to close the facility began.

55Exec. Order No. 13,022, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,875 (1996).

Page 60 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Midway Phoenix Corporation to run small-aircraft flights to the island,

where visitors can view the wildlife, take diving tours, and fish. Midway

Sport Fishing, Inc. has already begun its service. Legislation is pending to

study the feasibility and advisability of establishing Midway Atoll as a

national memorial to the Battle of Midway.56

56S. 940, 105th Cong. (1997). Hearings were held on October 1, 1997, by the Subcommittee on Parks,

Preservation, and Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Page 61 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Figure II.8: Wake Atoll

Reef

Island

Legend

Peacock

 Point

Heel

Point

Toki

Point

Kuku

Point

Wake Island

Peale

Island

Wilkes

Island

Lagoon

North Pacific Ocean

Page 62 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix II 

Relationship With the United States of Nine

Small Insular Areas

Wake Atoll Wake Atoll is 2,300 miles west of Honolulu. It consists of three islands

with a land area of 2 and one-half square miles. Figure II.8 illustrates the

geography of Wake. Wake is also claimed by the Republic of the Marshall

Islands. The U.S. has never recognized this claim and has remained in

exclusive control of the atoll since the end of World War II.

Wake is not a guano island and was not claimed under the Guano Islands

Act of 1865. It is named for a British sea captain who landed there in 1796.

Brigadier General Francis Greene stopped at Wake in 1898 enroute to the

Philippines during the Spanish-American War and raised the American flag

on the island. The following year, Commander Taussig of the U.S. Navy

landed on Wake and took possession of the island for the United States.

Wake Atoll was annexed for use as a cable station, but its main use came

in the 1930s as a refueling base for early trans-Pacific air flight. In 1935, a

Pan American Airways refueling base was set up and a 48-room hotel was

opened. By the outbreak of World War II, Wake had been developed into a

major air and submarine base.

After the war, Wake was administered by the U.S. Navy until 1962 when

jurisdiction was vested in the Secretary of the Interior.57 It is currently

being used by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

57Exec. Order 11,048, 27 Fed. Reg. 8851 (1962).

Page 63 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix III 

Comments From the United States Coast

Guard

See p. 49.

Page 64 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

Note: GAO comment

supplementing those in

the report text appears at

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 65 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of the Interior’s letter

dated July 3, 1997.

GAO Comment 1. We have modified the report to reflect the Department of the Interior’s

comments. The enclosures have not been reproduced.

Page 66 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix V 

Comments From the Resident

Commissioner of Puerto Rico

Note: GAO comment

supplementing those in

the report text appears at

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 67 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix V 

Comments From the Resident

Commissioner of Puerto Rico

The following is GAO’s comment on the letter from the Resident

Commissioner of Puerto Rico.

GAO Comment 1. We have modified the report to reflect the Resident Commissioner’s

comments. The enclosure has not been reproduced.

Page 68 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Resident

Representative of the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands

Now on p. 33.

Page 69 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Resident

Representative of the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands

See p. 7.

Page 70 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

Office of the General

Counsel

Dayna K. Shah, Assistant General Counsel

Mary W. Reich, Senior Attorney

(996215) Page 71 GAO/OGC-98-5 The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100